Workaround for gun bans

[m16ty]

I had an Idea today. With all the talk of federal bans, I think I may have found a way around it.

 

It seems any bans would only apply to civilains and not law enforcement. Could the state of TN make a licensing system that would in essence deputize the civilains wanting to own banned guns and mags? Like a state permiting system that would (on paper) make civilains part of law enforcement. Or maybe even a type of state militia that only required permit to join.

 

It's just something I thought of and I'm not even sure it would work. At least it would be a way for the state of TN to give the feds the finger on gun bans.

 

 

[Pain103]

  Will never happen.

[xRUSTYx]

Certainly an interesting idea .... Although, I'm not entirely sure what the legal ramifications of doing such a think might mean?

 

Either way ... Something to think about :)

[Dolomite_supafly]

You think some people have an attitude now. Deputize a few million and there is bound to be a few who think they have full on LE, kick the door down, powers. And even if they did, like Rusty said, the legal ramification would be monumental if one of those "deputies" did something to hurt someoen else.

 

Interesting idea though.

 

Dolomite

[tnhawk]

A government which will not allow carry to an employee parking lot, isn't going to deputize its citizens.

[Will H]

Yeah, i would think nullification of an AWB would be more likely,...  But I don't see that happening either.

[Guest drv2fst]

I think it's a fantastic idea.  I won't comment on it's practicality, but I like it.  That way we could buy post '86 full auto's as well.  

 

Wouldn't that be karma, the Federal Government moves to take gun rights away from citizens and the states respond by giving them even more gun rights.  

 

We need the balance of power in this country to swing back towards the states and the individual citizen and away from the the Feds.

[DaveTN]

If the state of Tennessee (or any other state) wants to defy a gun ban, they will just do it. It wouldn’t matter how they did it.

It could possibly happen. That is the reason (IMO) the SCOTUS ruled you have a right to keep arms but the state will control how you bear them. If they had ruled everyone could strap on a gun several states would have told them to go pound sand.

There won’t be an outright ban on guns; the SCOTUS settled that already. But I doubt any states will defy an assault weapons ban if it passed. With the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act we could try. But the Feds have already warned how that is going to go. So you are back to will the state stand against the Feds? I don’t think so on a ban.
 

 

We need the balance of power in this country to swing back towards the states and the individual citizen and away from the the Feds.

It is, that’s why the 2nd amendment can’t be enforced. The states will not stand for the Feds telling them when and where you can carry. The states are exercising states’ rights.

[GlockSpock]

So you are back to will the state stand against the Feds? I don’t think so on a ban.

Well, not that I disagree with you, but simply bringing in the fact that two states recently legalized recreational marijuana. So far the feds haven't really reacted, but that doesn't mean that they won't. Find a state like Arizona, Alaska, or Texas, and I wouldn't be surprised if one of them did try to nullify.

[QuietDan]

I had an Idea today. With all the talk of federal bans, I think I may have found a way around it.

 

It seems any bans would only apply to civilains and not law enforcement. Could the state of TN make a licensing system that would in essence deputize the civilains wanting to own banned guns and mags? Like a state permiting system that would (on paper) make civilains part of law enforcement. Or maybe even a type of state militia that only required permit to join.

 

It's just something I thought of and I'm not even sure it would work. At least it would be a way for the state of TN to give the feds the finger on gun bans.

 

Posted on another thread:

 

In a Tenth Amendment move, all the Governors of the various States have to do is declare that all non-felonious able-bodied men and all volunteer women between the ages of 18 and 80 in their State are members of the State Militia, (note it on their driver's license or HCP card) and are authorized military style and quality firearms, ammunition, and related supplies, and the feds can go pack sand.

[QuietDan]

If the state of Tennessee (or any other state) wants to defy a gun ban, they will just do it. It wouldn’t matter how they did it.

It could possibly happen. That is the reason (IMO) the SCOTUS ruled you have a right to keep arms but the state will control how you bear them. If they had ruled everyone could strap on a gun several states would have told them to go pound sand.

There won’t be an outright ban on guns; the SCOTUS settled that already. But I doubt any states will defy an assault weapons ban if it passed. With the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act we could try. But the Feds have already warned how that is going to go. So you are back to will the state stand against the Feds? I don’t think so on a ban.
 

 

It is, that’s why the 2nd amendment can’t be enforced. The states will not stand for the Feds telling them when and where you can carry. The states are exercising states’ rights.

 

I did not notice you used the phrase "feds pound sand." Great minds think alike, I guess.

[JayC]

I had an Idea today. With all the talk of federal bans, I think I may have found a way around it.

 

It seems any bans would only apply to civilains and not law enforcement. Could the state of TN make a licensing system that would in essence deputize the civilains wanting to own banned guns and mags? Like a state permiting system that would (on paper) make civilains part of law enforcement. Or maybe even a type of state militia that only required permit to join.

 

It's just something I thought of and I'm not even sure it would work. At least it would be a way for the state of TN to give the feds the finger on gun bans.

 

Making people members of law enforcement would be a tough road, lots of legal issues with people acting as agents of the state.

 

The militia route would be a much simpler route to take, it wouldn't have all the liability issues, and would allow members of the militia to bypass NFA restrictions as well as any new AWB.  Now do I see TN doing something like this?  I doubt it.

 

But, you might see Texas or Montana doing something like this.

 

And once you have a couple of states step out there, much like the current permitting system you'd see most states add it within 10 years or so.

[McAllyn]

Didn't several states, Montana comes to mind, basically bypass the NFA?  Since it made the news a while back, last year or year before maybe, I haven't heard anything since.  I'm not sure anyone has "tested" the states' ability to do this, and with the fines, fees, Federal prison time, and MAJOR tag on the arrest record, I don't think anyone has had the stones to give it a shot.

 

The reason I ask is because if the state said, "If you make a suppressor here in this state and want to own it or sell it, go for it.  The Fed has no business here."  That precedent has the potential to effect this very same outcome as anyone here in TN with the equipment and knowledge to build weapons could pump them out as fast and furious as possible with TN residents able to pay for them with one hand and "Single Finger Salute" the Fed with the other.

 

FWIW, I know my facts are VASTLY oversimplified in the above, but this is just a casual discussion.  The actual facts of what Montana and several other states did with the NFA are far more elaborate, and for all I know, there may have already been a countermeasure put in place to rein them back in.

 

To the point of this discussion, I will say we all know what happens when people try to find "workarounds" for legislation.  Well, that is unless you're powerful and connected enough to not be worried about consequences.

 

Mac

[JayC]

TN has basically the same law as MT, but without the requirement that the Attorney General provide a legal defense to any MT resident who is charged.

 

The problem is the day the law went into effect F-Troop (BATFE) sent out a letter to FFLs stating that if anybody tried to using this law to make firearms or NFA registered items, they would come after them for breaking federal law.  Even though the law has been on the books for years nobody has risked being thrown under the jail yet to test the law in court.

 

Didn't several states, Montana comes to mind, basically bypass the NFA?  Since it made the news a while back, last year or year before maybe, I haven't heard anything since.  I'm not sure anyone has "tested" the states' ability to do this, and with the fines, fees, Federal prison time, and MAJOR tag on the arrest record, I don't think anyone has had the stones to give it a shot.

 

The reason I ask is because if the state said, "If you make a suppressor here in this state and want to own it or sell it, go for it.  The Fed has no business here."  That precedent has the potential to effect this very same outcome as anyone here in TN with the equipment and knowledge to build weapons could pump them out as fast and furious as possible with TN residents able to pay for them with one hand and "Single Finger Salute" the Fed with the other.

 

FWIW, I know my facts are VASTLY oversimplified in the above, but this is just a casual discussion.  The actual facts of what Montana and several other states did with the NFA are far more elaborate, and for all I know, there may have already been a countermeasure put in place to rein them back in.

 

To the point of this discussion, I will say we all know what happens when people try to find "workarounds" for legislation.  Well, that is unless you're powerful and connected enough to not be worried about consequences.

 

Mac

 

 

[gnmwilliams]

I was talking to a friend the other day about ways to get around the mag ban if it ever comes to that. As much as they're calling them "clips" in the news if we could just get them to use that exact description of them in any legislation than wouldn't "mags" technically be ok to own? :) Yeah yeah I know, good luck with that. But still, it'd be funny.

[QuietDan]

Regarding workarounds, a few thoughts come to mind.

 

Once upon a time, CB radios went from . . . a dozen channels (???) to . . . two dozen channels. It became illegal to sell the older CB radios. Sooo, people would sell the MICROPHONE, and throw in the old style CB for "free."

 

In Iceland with the U.S. military, the Icelanders thought of dogs as farm animals and didn't want them in the towns. Therefore, whenever there was an ad in the on-base newspaper for 'free dog to a good home' type ads, they always read 'fuzzy pet to a good home.' Fuzzy pets. Everyone knew they meant dogs, and the Icelanders looked the other way. Anybody want to buy a 'spring loaded ammunition box'? How about a 'banana-shaped ammunition storage receptacle'?

 

I'm thinking that during the previous AWB, they could only sell 'pre-ban' magazines and no new production magazines. However, they could sell 'magazine repair kits' or 'magazine spare parts kits' which surprisingly, contained all the parts for a magazine, just un-assembled -- put the spring and the follower and the floor plate in the case and you were good to go. Stupid sounding, huh?

Edited December 21, 2012 by QuietDan

[DaveTN]

TN has basically the same law as MT, but without the requirement that the Attorney General provide a legal defense to any MT resident who is charged.

 

The problem is the day the law went into effect F-Troop (BATFE) sent out a letter to FFLs stating that if anybody tried to using this law to make firearms or NFA registered items, they would come after them for breaking federal law.  Even though the law has been on the books for years nobody has risked being thrown under the jail yet to test the law in court.

I have never been able to get an answer from a reliable legal source on why we have to wait for someone to be arrested before making a challenge. Yes, the BATF has drawn a line in the sand, and it needs to be challenged in the courts. Heller and a group of others challenged the DC guns laws without any of them being arrested.

[McAllyn]

Challenging would make much better sense.  Testing means you go to FPMITAP.  Challenging means some lawyer-types stay up late a few nights.  (No offense to you fine lawyer-types on this forum!  Forget I said this comment when I contact one of you for my NFA Trust next year!)

 

Mac 

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I don't remember the decision, DaveTN, but there is some case law precedence that requires that process.

I don't understand it either, though.

Somehow, challenging a law's constitutionality means that a law has to be tested in the court system, rather than the

meaningful process of having it challenged before it is enacted, which makes more sense to me. 

[Caster]

To that end, you might reference Starship Troopers. In so much that a resident of this country, free to work, live and prosper differs great from a citizen with extended rights earned from civil service or other. This line of thinking leads to elitism and subjugation of masses though. Can you really live with a police state? I'm guessing a state full of policemen would a nightmare.

[JayC]

I have never been able to get an answer from a reliable legal source on why we have to wait for someone to be arrested before making a challenge. Yes, the BATF has drawn a line in the sand, and it needs to be challenged in the courts. Heller and a group of others challenged the DC guns laws without any of them being arrested.

 

I'm guessing anybody who received that letter could use it as standing in a court challenge, but you'd have to fund the challenge 100% out of pocket because it would not be covered under the MT AG protection law.

 

My guess is that group such as SAF who bank rolls the vast majority of pro-2nd amendment court cases is looking for lower hanging fruit...  why attack states rights when you still have a lot of clearly unconstitutional laws at both the state and federal level to go after under the current Heller and McDonald rulings.

[surfabilly]

Posted on another thread:

 

In a Tenth Amendment move, all the Governors of the various States have to do is declare that all non-felonious able-bodied men and all volunteer women between the ages of 18 and 80 in their State are members of the State Militia, (note it on their driver's license or HCP card) and are authorized military style and quality firearms, ammunition, and related supplies, and the feds can go pack sand.

 

late to the thread, but IF members of a militia were to be exempt would that include the federal militia?  i was wondering about the "militia argument" the anti-2A folks like to use so i looked up the US code regarding the militia.  seems that every able bodied male US citizen between 17 and 45 years old is a part of the federal militia.  here is the code:

 

 

-CITE-
    10 USC Sec. 311                                             01/03/2012 (112-90)

-EXPCITE-
    TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
    Subtitle A - General Military Law
    PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
    CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-HEAD-
    Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

-STATUTE-
      (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
    males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
    313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
    declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
    and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
    National Guard.
      (b) The classes of the militia are - 
        (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
      and the Naval Militia; and
        (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
      the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
      Naval Militia.

-SOURCE-
    (Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85-861, Sec. 1(7),
    Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103-160, div. A, title V,
    Sec. 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)

-MISC1-

 

[m16ty]

Great replies! I started this thread to get us to thinking. Some have expanded on my idea and others have mentioned new ones.

 

I personally feel we have a lot better chance getting something done on a state level than we do on the federal level. We have a pretty pro-gun government on the state level here in TN.

 

Even thought the liberals won the national election, they didn't win TN and a bunch of other states. While the country as a whole is moving to the left, I think TN and other southern states are moving right. The only way I see the conservitives ever getting ahead again is to stand up for our 10th amendment rights.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Also, at the time something like this might be considered, there would already be some serious problems creeping

up on us, like UN blue helmets or something similar. There would have to be a serious threat to a state's sovereignty. A state wouldn't be concerning itself with what the Federal government had to say, at that point.

Edited December 22, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[Guest LRJETCAP]

You think some people have an attitude now. Deputize a few million and there is bound to be a few who think they have full on LE, kick the door down, powers. And even if they did, like Rusty said, the legal ramification would be monumental if one of those "deputies" did something to hurt someoen else.

 

Interesting idea though.

 

Dolomite

Saw this and reminded me of a old boss of mine after Hurricane Katrina was given a badge as a "Deputy" for Plaquemines Parish, LA for aiding in the rebuilding of the city.  I flew him into Honduras when Chavez was trying to replace the president and the country was on the brink of a Civil War.  He decided to open carry his .45 and was damn near thrown in prison in Tegucigalpa.  Had it taken away and they actually allowed him to bring it back to the States.  Upon retuning and clearing customs and immigration in Ft Lauderdale he was was arrained on several charges, he spent 4 DAYS trying to explain that he was a "Sheriff" which of course made an already bad situation worse.  Turned into a nice 4 day vacation though :up: